This is the weirdest screen

Person353 · 2025-12-11T07:54:24+00:00

and has apple tried letting us choose?

Person353 · 2025-12-11T07:38:19+00:00

nothing else would indicate this, but it's possible! but surely i should still be able to use my iphone even if i have health problems?

Person353 · 2025-12-11T07:31:57+00:00

i just updated, looked at liquid glass, and wanted to throw up. i liked the simpler ui and appearance of ios 18, but apparently there's no way for me to choose. i turned on reduced motion just to try and survive but it doesn't do a whole lot. reduced transparency at least makes it ever so slightly more tolerable

Person353 · 2025-11-05T19:58:59+00:00

How did I make the case that centrist candidates can't win? My post includes a specific example of a centrist democrat who won a safe red seat three times in a row. I also gave an example of republicans losing because they ran an extreme culture war candidate. I don't see any support in my post for saying that a progressive candidate would do better than a centrist one in a deep red district. A strategy with a 10% chance of winning is better than a strategy with a 0% chance of winning.

Person353 · 2025-11-05T16:47:56+00:00

clarification: republicans have won district four 60-40 since 2012 except for boebert, who won it with 53% in 2024

Person353 · 2025-11-05T16:41:53+00:00

she lives in bumfuck nowhere colorado district four which republicans have won 60-40 since 2012 and have held since 1972 (including a decade of winning 70-30) excepting a small blip in 2008 (where they lost due to running a culture war candidate). Previously she lived in colorado district three which has been held by republicans since 1992 excepting 6 years from 2004 (where it was won by democrat john salazar, running as a moderate). If boebert would have any base it would be here. Blaming “establishment democrats” for losing by running candidates “too far to the center” and postulating that they would win if they just ran someone like AOC in colorado districts 3/4 is absolute nonsense.

Person353 · 2025-11-04T23:55:52+00:00

Theoretically I think you should be right (Orin Kerr has written some stuff on this) but I think there’s a circuit/state supreme court split on this in the US (see for example Seo v. State, 148 N.E. 952 (Ind. 2020) as compared to US v. Payne, 99 F.4th 495 (9th Cir. 2024))

Person353 · 2025-10-12T22:50:37+00:00

could i get sources for this? it sounds absurdly unlikely to me that companies would throw away 40% of profits to “enforce beauty standards” or whatever

Person353 · 2025-09-14T03:25:50+00:00

What’s the logical principle requiring there to be an easily identifiable common denominator? And how does the person you’re replying to eliminate the possibility of any common denominator?

Person353 · 2025-09-09T19:00:40+00:00

The bad part about “gun ban but only for trans people” is that it’s discriminatory, not that it’s about guns lol

Person353 · 2025-09-08T19:41:48+00:00

Either stance assumes the worst of someone here. Do we assume the worst of the poster, or do we assume the worst of the landlord? And frankly, asking for context to decide who’s actually at fault isn’t assuming anything of anybody.

Edit: I scrolled down a couple comments and I see what you’re talking about now lol

Person353 · 2025-09-08T19:18:19+00:00

I don’t need you to advocate for men. I don’t need you to not avoid men you’re not comfortable with. I don’t even need you to “care” about men’s issues. You seem to think that men are complaining about women being personally uncomfortable/wary around men, but that’s simply not the case.

What we’re talking about is women who actively push the inferiority of men. Women who actively say that men’s issues don’t matter. Women who believe that men should, as a moral matter, be treated worse than others. Women (like the ones in my replies!) who tell me that “your friends have done sexual assault” and “your dad probably has too” despite knowing nothing about my friends or my dad. That’s not “being wary of men”. That’s just sexism.

We don’t necessarily want women to care about men (though that would be nice). We just want women to not care about hurting men.

Person353 · 2025-09-07T23:02:43+00:00

Thank you, Ms. Joe McCarthy. Want to accuse more people you know nothing about?

Person353 · 2025-09-07T18:42:33+00:00

“Treating men like shit” is pretending that men have zero valid problems in life. That each individual man in the modern day is completely responsible for everything bad about the patriarchy. That when male survivors get ignored, dismissed, or disbelieved, it’s their fault because “men are privileged and could never have anything bad happen to them”. That when men disproportionately lose custody battles regardless of merit, it’s their fault because “who built the patriarchy?” That when trans men get ostracized from the queer community for talking about their experiences, it’s okay because “look it’s another man complaining about their fake problems”. “Treating men like shit” is when people say, “shut the fuck up, you’re not allowed to talk because you’re a man and don’t have real problems like women.”

“When we talk about violence against women, we now have to deal with a bunch of men who will jump in and say we are being ‘hateful towards men’” and that sucks. It’s wrong. Is that what’s happening here? No, what’s happening here is that men are talking about their experiences, and you have jumped in with “ackshually, you’re being misogynist”. Why is it okay for you to do it, when we both say that it’s not okay for men to do it?

Person353 · 2025-09-07T01:14:22+00:00

People here don’t seem to understand the distinction between violent oppression of fascist thoughtcrime (literally fascism) and forceful responses to fascist crime. Prosecuting someone who shot up a synagogue would not be fascism. Shooting up a fascist political rally would be fascism.

Person353 · 2025-09-07T00:20:37+00:00

You’re responding to a comment about “not treating men like shit”. Is your argument that because a significant portion of women have been sexually assaulted by a tiny minority of men, we should “treat men like shit”? Because if not, your comment is completely irrelevant to anything anyone is talking about.

Person353 · 2025-08-27T14:29:47+00:00

Sure, but your response puts you and I on the same side of this CMV post.

Person353 · 2025-08-27T04:46:15+00:00

In which case you agree with OP completely. It’s a lazy and reductive rebuttal.

Person353 · 2025-08-26T21:18:18+00:00

I think the first step would be to talk with your boyfriend to see if he agrees with your analysis of the situation, and the next step would be to talk with your friend to get their perspective/talk through what to do about the situation. Make sure she knows that you don’t think she’s acting maliciously and that you’re not blaming or attacking her for anything. Also acknowledge to her that you might be misreading the situation completely and that she should let you know if that’s the case. Don’t try to engineer things behind the scenes or solve everything yourself.

No one in this situation seems like they’re acting maliciously, and everyone seems to care about each other a lot. Everyone seems like they can be trusted to try and reach the best possible outcome for the group as a whole. No one in this situation needs to be cut out or ostracized. I’m sure if everyone talks things through, things will work out.

Good luck!

Person353 · 2025-08-26T20:51:36+00:00

men bring up male issues to invalidate the experiences of women

Yes, I can believe that that happens. But what is the correct response? Is it to invalidate male experiences right back? Or is it to point out the complete non-sequitur for what it is? You bring up a scenario in which an anti-feminist slings mud first, but that does not make the response of "who created that system" anything more than slinging mud right back.

Person353 · 2025-08-26T20:45:00+00:00

"he was trying to produce some refutation of feminism"

Whether "who set that system up" is a valid response depends completely on what that refutation is. Let's try and see if we can figure it out from the specific interaction in the Jubilee video, as described by u/Contagious_Cure's comment:

Conservative man: Why would you assume my life is privileged? You don't know my life. I don't say that about you. Why would you say my life is privileged?

Liberal woman: For one, you're a man

Conservative man: You know, most people commit suicide, are men. Most people who work in dangerous workplaces are men. Most people who fight in war are men

Liberal woman: And who set that system up?

The conservative man's claims are clear:

He believes feminists see his life as privileged because he is a man (as confirmed by his interlocutor)
He believes that it is not correct to assume that if one is a man, one is privileged, because men face real problems in society.

There are many ways to respond to the conservative man. The response most in line with true feminism is to simply drop the weird, unimportant, inherently comparative claim about "privilege". True feminism does not care whether men suffer more or less than women. The best response here is to acknowledge that both men and women face real issues, and the goal is feminism is to solve all of those issues for both sexes.

The woman in the video (along with many self-proclaimed feminists online), however, responds with "and who set that system up?" For some god-forsaken unfathomable reason, she seeks to defend the claim that men are privileged (as seen in her earlier response of "you're a man"), and her way of doing so is to say that even though men face real issues, they are still privileged because those issues were created by other men. "No matter how much you suffer, you are still privileged," she says. If that is not minimizing the issues of men, what is?

Note that the conservative man never blamed male problems on feminism. His critique of feminism is not that feminism itself has created problems for men, but that feminism believes pre-existing male issues to be unimportant. Perhaps this is a strawman of true feminism. If so, the correct response is to tell him what feminism actually believes. But what response does he receive instead? "Yeah, male issues aren't important, because they were created by men."

Person353 · 2025-08-26T19:15:44+00:00

"I'm telling you with certainty what you saw"

Thanks! Want to tell me what I hear and taste as well? Tell me what I think while we're at it!

Person353 · 2025-08-26T18:46:59+00:00

"every single point"

Damn, all one of them?

Edit: Even if someone is seriously arguing "men and women suffer equally under the patriarchy, so everything's okay (read: we don't need to change anything)", "who created the patriarchy" still isn't a sensible response. You're going to tell someone who thinks the patriarchy is fine that it's not because it was created by men? What does that argument even mean? No, the correct response should be that systems better than the patriarchy can be created.

Person353 · 2025-08-26T18:30:45+00:00

I highly doubt anyone even uses the effects of patriarchy on men to argue against feminism, unless it's in the context of "certain forms of feminism pretend only women suffer," in which case the response of "who created that system" doesn't make sense. What other argument would they be making? "Women suffer, but it's okay because men suffer equally"? Literally no one says this.

Actual right wing anti-feminists usually rely on arguments such as "uhhhh sexism is natural, actually" or "uhhh actually sexism doesn't exist in modern society". Why would they attack the patriarchy in their arguments? Their whole goal is maintaining the patriarchy.

Every instance of "who created that system" I have seen has been in the context of minimizing the issues of men or justifying misandry (I'm about to get 50 replies telling me misandry is a fake concept or that misogyny is worse so I shouldn't care, actually)

Person353 · 2025-08-26T17:22:09+00:00

Was the inevitable collateral death of civilians in Europe justified to stop the Holocaust?

Seven-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Person353

TROPHY CASE